Delhi HC Grants Time to Kejriwal, Sisodia to Reply in ED Plea Against Trial Court Remarks in Excise Case

Original Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted time to Delhi’s old Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and old Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, among others, to file their replies in a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) hard negative observations made by a trial court in the Excise Protection case.

The subject was as soon as taken up by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was as soon as told that the trial court’s judgment runs into quite loads of hundred pages and requires detailed examination. Taking demonstrate of the submissions, the Court common the respondents to file their replies and listed the subject for further hearing on April 2.

All the way in which through the lawsuits, the Bench requested the events how great time would be required to argue the subject. In response, counsel for the respondents highlighted the voluminous nature of the trial court utter. One of many counsel additionally advised that the subject shall be heard after lawsuits in the related CBI case.

The Court, alternatively, indicated that it would possibly maybe actually maybe first struggle through the pleadings sooner than fixing a time table for detailed arguments. It clarified that as soon as replies are filed, this will possess in mind the subject and then decide the timeline for the final hearing. The Bench further noticed that if the ED wishes to come arguments, it would possibly maybe actually maybe simply attain so first, followed by the respondents.

The plea sooner than the High Court has been filed by the ED looking out for the expunging of determined remarks made by the trial court in its February 27, 2026, utter, which discharged a pair of accused in the Delhi Excise Protection case. The company has contended that the trial court made sweeping and negative observations in opposition to it despite the ED now not being a celebration to the lawsuits.

Earlier, whereas issuing look in the subject, the High Court had prima facie noticed that the remarks in opposition to the ED appeared “foundationally misconceived,” namely as they were made at the stage of furious about discharge applications.

The ED has argued that the trial court went previous the scope of the lawsuits in the CBI case and made intensive feedback on its investigation beneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA) without inspecting the subject cloth light by the company. It has further submitted that such observations, made without hearing the ED, violate principles of natural justice and will prejudice ongoing lawsuits.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the observations shaped allotment of the trial court’s reasoning and can’t be selectively deleted. It has been argued that the trial court regarded as the general discipline cloth sooner than it whereas deciding the discharge applications.

The ED has sought deletion of explicit portions of the trial court’s utter, contending that the remarks quantity to unwarranted criticism of its functioning. It has additionally objected to determined observations pertaining to to arrests and the role of investigative agencies, along side remarks suggesting that such agencies ought to tranquil now not enter the “electoral arena.”